Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Verizon's electronic distribution of GPL'd binary code at
> http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
> is utterly non-compliant, silly.

That download is only for owners of the router. Those owners
have already gotten GPL information from the Verizon manual
and disk it comes with.

> Same as
> 
http://www.ibm.com/systems/support/supportsite.wss/docdisplay?lndocid=MIGR-64669&brandind=5000020
> which is also utterly non-compliant.

Possibly true. In which case a Linux copyright holder needs to
address the problem in the same way that the BusyBox authors did.

> according to the SFLC, it is non-compliant as well!

This is talking about satisfying the source requirement when the
binary is shipped. Here we have a website which is offering the
binary and source in parallel. And the SFLC guide offers a best-
practices guide to properly satisfying the GPL, not necessarily
the only way. It's also likely that the SFLC's reading of the GPL
requirements is more aspirational than an adversarial reading
would be - naturally someone who participated in the construction
of the license would prefer to interpret it expansively.

As you helpfully demonstrated with your quote from the
MySQL/NuSphere case, if a copyright holder believes his license
terms are not being properly honored, he can file suit, and then
the details will be worked out in litigation or settlement.